Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 409–414 | Cite as

Association patterns of spider monkeys: the influence of ecology and sex on social organization

  • Colin A. Chapman
Article

Summary

In this paper I consider how the costs and benefits of group living in spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi) vary between troop members. The results suggest that ecological factors set an upper limit to the number of spider monkeys that can associate and still efficiently exploit the available resources. In addition, the needs of the individual appears to influence the type and size of the subgroup it chooses. Adult males band together, travel over a large area, and are frequently sighted near the community's boundary. In contrast, adult females spend more time solitary than males and have association patterns that are strongly influenced by the presence of a dependent infant. Females with dependent infants tend to travel in small subgroups or alone, avoid the boundaries of the community's home range, and exhibit a restricted pattern of use of their range. The results suggest that males may be attempting to locate females with which they can breed, while mothers attempt to protect their infants by avoiding conspecifics and potentially dangerous situations near territorial boundaries.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp S (1976) Social organization and foraging in emballonurid bats. II. A model for the determination of group size. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1:383–404Google Scholar
  2. Chapman CA (1988 a) Patterns of foraging and range use by three species of neotropical primates. Primates 29:177–194Google Scholar
  3. Chapman CA (1988 b) Patch use and patch depletion by the spider and howling monkeys of Santa Rosa National Park, Costa Rica. Behaviour 150:99–116Google Scholar
  4. Chapman CA, Chapman LJ (1990) Density and growth rate of some tropical dry forest trees: comparisons between successional forest types. Bull Torrey Bot Club (in press)Google Scholar
  5. Chapman CA, Fedigan LM, Fedigan L, Chapman LJ (1989) Post-weaning resource competition and sex ratios in spider monkeys. Oikos 54:315–319Google Scholar
  6. Clark CW, Mangel M (1986) The evolutionary advantages of group foraging. Theor Popul Biol 30:45–75Google Scholar
  7. Conover WJ (1980) Practical nonparametric statitics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Glander KE, Fedigan LM, Fedigan L, Chapman C (1990) Capture techniques for three species of monkeys in Costa Rica (in press)Google Scholar
  9. Janson C (1985) Aggressive competition and individual food consumption in wild brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18:125–138Google Scholar
  10. Janzen DH (1986) Guanacaste National Park. (Editorial). University of Estratal a Distancia, San Jose, Costa RicaGoogle Scholar
  11. Jarman PJ (1974) The social oranization of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 48:215–267Google Scholar
  12. Jarman PJ (1983) Mating systems and sexual dimorphism in large, terrestrial, mammalian herbivores. Biol Rev 58:485–520Google Scholar
  13. Klein LL (1972) The ecology and social organization of the spider monkey Ateles helzebuth. Ph D Dissertation. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  14. Klein LL, Klein DB (1977) Feeding behaviour of the Columbian spider monkey. In: Clutton-Brock TH (ed) Primate ecology. Academic Press, London, pp 153–181Google Scholar
  15. Lott D (1984) Intraspecific variation in the social systems of wild vertebrates. Behaviour 88:266–325Google Scholar
  16. Nishida T, Hiraiwa-Hasegawa M (1987) Chimpanzees and Bonobos: Cooperative relationships among males. In: Smuts BB, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM, Wrangham RW, Struhsaker TT (eds) Primate societies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 117–165Google Scholar
  17. Peters RH, Cloutier S, Dube D, Evans A, Hastings P, Kaiser H, Kohn D, Sarwer-Foner B (1988) The ecology of the weight of fruit on trees and shrubs in Barbados. Oecologia 74:612–616Google Scholar
  18. Pulliam HR, Caraco T (1984) Living in groups: is there an optimal group size? In: Krebs JR, Davis N (eds) Behavioural ecology. Sunderland, Sinauer, pp 122–147Google Scholar
  19. Schaik CP van (1983) Why are diurnal primates living in groups? Behaviour 87:120–144Google Scholar
  20. Sokal R, Rohlf F (1981) Biometry. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  21. Symington M (1987) Ecological and social correlates of party size in the black spider monkeys, Ateles paniscus chamek. Ph D Disseration, Princeton University, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  22. Symington M (1988 a) Demography, ranging patterns, and activity budgets of black spider monkeys (Ateles paniscus chamek) in Mann national Park, Peru. Am J Primatol 15:45–67Google Scholar
  23. Symington M (1988 b) Food competition and foraging party size in the black spider monkey (Ateles paniscus chamek). Behaviour 105:117–134Google Scholar
  24. Whitten PL (1983) Diet and dominance among female vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops). Am J Primatol 5:139–159Google Scholar
  25. Wrangham RW (1986 a) Evolution of social structure. In: Smuts BB, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM, Wrangham RW, Struhsaker TT (eds) Primate societies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 282–296Google Scholar
  26. Wrangham RW (1986 b) Ecology and social relationships in two species of chimpanzees. In: Rubenstein DI, Wrangham RW (eds) Ecological aspects of social evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 352–378Google Scholar
  27. Wrangham RW, Rubenstein DI (1986) Social evolution in birds and mammals. In: Rubenstein DI, Wranham RW (eds) Ecological aspects of social evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 452–470Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin A. Chapman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Anthropology, Peabody MuseumHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations